Archaeologica.org

Yeah, it brings to mind the wooden spears we were just discussing a bit back: Dated at 380,000-400,000 B.P.

Those wooden spears - how often have they been misconstrued? They date from Heidelbergensis. Perfectly balanced with the weight toward the front end like a javelin.

Read all the info on Neandertal and you will see that he must have run forward and thrust the spear into his prey - like an idiot. Why? The spears were too heavy to be thrown.

Then all the other literature about his physical traits will tell you how powerfully he was built. Connection?

Those wooden spears - how often have they been misconstrued? They date from Heidelbergensis. Perfectly balanced with the weight toward the front end like a javelin.

Read all the info on Neandertal and you will see that he must have run forward and thrust the spear into his prey - like an idiot. Why? The spears were too heavy to be thrown.

Then all the other literature about his physical traits will tell you how powerfully he was built. Connection?

Again, it seems that the, too often employed, assumption that our ancestors weren't very smart, blurs further objectivity.

Though it may not have reduced to magnetic iron, I bet some melted, then curiosity kicked in.

These people certainly had the curiosity to build water craft and sail over the visible horizon. That has to give them a few points.

Read all the info on Neandertal and you will see that he must have run forward and thrust the spear into his prey - like an idiot.

To be fair, Alexander the Great conquered most of the known world with spears that were too heavy to be thrown.

Why? The spears were too heavy to be thrown.

Of course, when the Greeks tried to employ their phalanx system against the javelin-throwing Romans they got their Grecian asses kicked.

Thank you for that second point Min.
I was about to say that I don't think the
Neandertals hunted from the phalanx.

That would be hard to visualize.

Then again....I'll bet they could distinguish a lawyer from a quail.

I'll bet they could distinguish a lawyer from a quail.

Not wanting to stray off topic - but

Your comments about Iron Charlie. Much early development must have been by luck, nobody woke up one morning and decided to make Iron, but your suggestion would make sense, which is why I have always wondered why copper came first. There's nothing about copper ores that would suggest a metalic element, and the conversion needs a lot of heat, more than you would get from burning wood, without a forced draught at least. Pottery perhaps?

These people certainly had the curiosity to build water craft and sail over the visible horizon. That has to give them a few points.

Yeah, not so much that they set out with an end in mind, but observed something interesting, and started tinkering with it. Same with the water craft...

Then again....I'll bet they could distinguish a lawyer from a quail.

I've actually talked with Harry Whittington a bit, concerning permission to explore some of the land he manages in an estate. I can say, he definitely doesn't look like a quail...a politician, maybe.

Much early development must have been by luck, nobody woke up one morning and decided to make Iron, but your suggestion would make sense, which is why I have always wondered why copper came first. There's nothing about copper ores that would suggest a metalic element, and the conversion needs a lot of heat, more than you would get from burning wood, without a forced draught at least.

I agree. They made an observation, that happened by chance, and started tinkering with it.

Has anyone ever tried to replicate that? Make a firepit that contains different types of rocks and see what oozes out?

Has anyone ever tried to replicate that? Make a firepit that contains different types of rocks and see what oozes out?

I should actually try throwing some pyrite in a campfire, on a windy, dry night, and snap some shots. I know that roasting pyrite doesn't require a whole lot of heat...just the actually reducing to iron. What your recommending is similar to the research Bednarik is conducting, and it gets published. Good idea, Min.

The problem with that Min is that most copper ores that are stoney would need more heat than a normal cooking fire would produce to become metallic. Native copper, ie, metallic copper, was aparently used by beating into shape, but I've got a band of copper ore in a bank in my garden that is bright blue. Very attractive, but in no way would you think of it as being copper.

...need more heat than a normal cooking fire would produce to become metallic...

But maybe a particularly windy day? The ore may have been part of the firering?